Author: Peter Berger
Date: 14:39:16 12/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2001 at 16:17:18, Marc van Hal wrote: >Ok here a quick hint a because of indeed the Grunfeld defense it was only that >Kasparov did play the same position like he did before but I already posted why >it was not good Building up the presure on the centre with eventualy a Rd8 gives >black a small advantage >But the postings of the Grunfeld also where made on icd >It is not my fold that you can't find them again. Yes, I have read them in fact. I don't see the slightest connection to 2. Nf3 at all. Also I do remember a post of yours about a Kaspy dream you had in the other forum - I think that one was straight to the point . With his pale face he simply drove away in his limousine .. >The Junior6 book can help you out if you look carefuly Sorry, this is too little information for me to even bother to check. > >but the second reason is that after d4,d5 2.Nf3,e6 >The knight also stands wrongly placed to hold the advantage >if you want to contineu with the idea of Nc3 and Bg5 Hmm, it definitely stands wrongly if you want to continue with Nc3 . But why the heck would you even want to ?? I disagree when it is about Bg5 and would need more information and proof to believe you do have a point here. >And other idea after Nf3 then could be >Not playing Bg5 and Nc3 but Nd2 b3 Bb2 Huh ? OK - you offer _another_ idea _after_ Nf3 without even giving the slightest idea why it would be needed at all. >But if black plays it corectly White will loose the advantage here too The "too" is the problem . You didn't provide any idea why White should head for such a strange setup in the first place. >And I don't make postings anymore I rather sell them. :-) >So atleast my work gets the credit it deserves >Also maybe I am now blowing a litle high from the tower but I do not think you >are qualefied to make deep going anelyzes OK, this is probably true. But isn't it you who always keeps suggesting he has some valueable contributions to computerchess opening theory to make ? If you only do that as an advertisement to sell your analysis this is against the charta of this board IMHO . If you really have something to discuss : give it a try . >Curently I am working on this but it will take at least 1 more year when I am >finished. Marc, I really think you live in a kind of dreamworld or play some strange kind of mindgame. Wake up, guy ! Regards, pete
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.